One NYT article I read that particularly stood out to me was “Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship, Blocking a Key Trump Policy.” In a surprising turn of events, the conservative panel of justices voted against President Trump’s policies, effectively shutting down the decade-long pursuit. The article further detailed the decision demonstrating how powerful the opinion of nine men and women can be in blocking off years of effort from another governmental branch.

However, what made the article memorable was the elaborate examination of the dissent. Historically, the media, textbooks, and other landmark events are typically written or remembered from the “winner’s” perspective, but this article is one example that begs to differ. Explaining specifically why and deciphering the lengthy dissent, the opposition is without a doubt far from being left out.

Furthermore, I was interested by the deep ideological differences between justices of the same court. Press, government records, and the media may label them as either “conservative” or “liberal,” but the decision, and many others, proved otherwise. When met with a largely conservative policy, three of the six right-wing justices deliberated against the proposal, illustrating how labels do not necessarily define one’s actions.

Ultimately, beyond the immediate reasons for the justices’ decisions, the article highlights how birthright, and immigration as a whole, is still one of the most important issues in the US today. Humanitarian rights, morality, and ethics are hallmarks of policymaking in the field, exemplifying the complex ecosystem of American law.